champu

The latest from earlier this week: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Petition-for-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf Guy sues County. Court favors County. Guy appeals to 9th Circuit panel. Panel favors guy. County says "fine whatever." State AG says "what do you mean whatever?" State AG asks 9th circuit to rehear. Panel says, "You can't ask for that." State AG demands panel grant them permission to ask for rehearing. Panel says, "no really, piss-off, you can't wait until the defendant loses to decide you care." State AG appeals the decision on permission to ask the 9th circuit to review the reversal of the decision against guy. (...and then, of course if she still doesn't get her way, to appeal to the SCOTUS) What's amusing to me is that in this latest argument presented by the California AG, she's arguing that the reason she should be allowed to involve her office in the case is that the ruling fundamentally alters the entire scheme of carry law in the state, and by doing so she is admitting that the whole point of the "good cause" requirement was to grant sheriffs the ability to summarily decline permit applications, which is the exact reason that the panel ruled it unconstitutional. edited to add clarifying text

So you are saying that a virus on their computer has targeted their email client? (I know that this used to be a typical way of getting spam emails from "friends", but is it now?) People never learn so attack vectors don't ever really go away. You're correct that it could be a few different things though. Someone with you and the other contacts may have downloaded malware that pulled the contents of their e-mail client's address book and phoned home with it. There may have been malware on a public computer that retrieved their address book when they logged into a webmail account. Their webmail account password may be compromised and their address book may have been retrieved that way (no malware on their actual computer.) Also, if they have malware on their computer associated with spammers they are also likely now part of a botnet set up to actually generate and send the spam messages. I'm not sure what the latest is as far as what ISPs are doing about that though, normiss might be able to comment.

Did you know that under Medicaid standards, all communications with a covered individual have to use (no more than) 4th grade level language. Medicare allows 6th grade language. Commercial health insurance may use 8th grade language. Note that these standards long predate ACA so the righties can't blame Obama. The reading level the state of the union address has been written to has been decreasing for a very long time. http://flowingdata.com/2013/02/12/state-of-the-union-address-decreasing-reading-level/ I'm not sure what ACA has to do with it unless you're just stirring things up again. No, he was just expanding on my state of the union example (much as you were by adding your link, thank you) and then trying to preempt silly partisan retorts. It can be difficult to head off the bickering without sounding like you're making a snarky partisan comment yourself. Which brings us nicely back to the original topic. In addition to poor language and reasoning skills, the "reasonable person" is, more and more, presumed to be absent a sense of humor. Another reason they won't make for a particularly good arbiter of when a threatening statement becomes criminal.

I share the author's concern about the "reasonable person" standard, but not just because it can be stretched in corner cases. My concern is because I'm extremely cynical of the average person's ability to reason. A "reasonable person" is the same fifth-grader that the president's SOTUA is written for.

I think some internet-goers (other forums, if not here) get a little over-zealous about how publicly and readily available the video should be made as a matter of course. It's easy to forget that, through their work, police can sometimes be on and view private property. You can easily end up with gobs of footage that shouldn't be publicly available. Not an argument against it, but something that needs to be considered when sweating the details.

The police response was very new-age-active-shooter-esque. "Run towards the gunfire", "Direct police confrontation is the only thing that will stop the suspect from killing his next victim", etc. and is in stark contrast to the "set up a perimeter and establish contact with the suspect" methods used up through Columbine. The problem is, of course, this wasn't a new-age active shooter scenario. This is evidenced both in hindsight because the gun was a toy and in foresight because the suspect hadn't actually shot anyone. Police need to have, and use, more than just a hammer in their tool belt.

It's more than likely someone with that group of people in their local address book downloaded malware onto their computer.

She sounds like she has brain damage.

Definitely a tragic story that I'm sorry to hear. Hope everyone here has and/or has had a very nice thanksgiving. I've spent the past week in a house with a three year old, a one year old, and a dozen guns or so (and other people and things.) I even helped my dad mount a scope on a new rifle in his shop. We keep the firearms secured away from children and, lo and behold, no issues.

Solution: Don't look like a thug. Yet we can't tell a white girl not to dress like a whore after she gets raped. Unless of course you believe a girl deserves to get raped if she dresses sexy? This is not a good comparison. If you are raped then someone has committed a crime against you, your attire does not commute that in any way. Being "harassed by police" (ill-defined, but let's just say "contacted by police in a fishing manner") because of overall appearance or because of something on your person, so long as it doesn't relate to a protected class, is not a crime against you. If you escalate the situation (and this is where body cameras become important) then that's on you. At that point it's not about your appearance anymore. There are plenty of completely legal but unprotected things you can be doing that will draw cops to you and set them on fishing expeditions. You probably even really like that in some cases.

"I'm not racist, I stole a TV during the Rodney King riots."

Whitey hasn't been on the moon for some time now. Nell should go to an urgent care and get a shot.

What is an "actual black man"? He meant "actual" as in "bona fide" as in "has black skin" and he used the word to contrast with you and Bill O'Reilly who do not have black skin. He wasn't using it to contrast between varying groups of people with black skin. I would rate his comment I quoted here as "mildly snarky" but definitely not intended in the direction you took it.

In the case of your posted example I doubt "Your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com" would pass muster in court but, as with most things, by the time you're in court you've already lost. The idea of including an NDA regarding the service you receive in the contract to receive the service is hilarious though. I second the anonymous review suggestion.

You've got it all wrong... from another article on the story... When white people are shot and killed it isn't because of racism, it's because of the NRA.

In the case you describe it would be "pericynthion" More generically you can just use periapsis.

Gotcha... the way you wrote it the first time it kinda sounded like you were saying charge $70 plus $0.10/kWh for energy used and give back $0.04/kWh for energy generated ("cost" vs. "avoided cost" terminology) Also, the "$70" is going to vary greatly based on population density, but you've alluded to that. As I shared in post #175, my electric bill hovers around $40-$50 total throughout the year.

I hear what your saying about "infrastructure ain't free", and this may be an artifact of how bills are broken down place to place, but it sounds like you're suggesting double booking the infrastructure costs against solar customers. If what you mean is "charge them what you would have charged them to sell them what they bought, and only agree to buy back their power at cost rather than sale price to offset that" then I think it makes sense. If you structured it that way, however, I would propose removing the $0 bottom limit on your monthly bill.

Except from the FAQ... Or are you saying this just operates under the assumption that all households use about the same mix of peak and off-peak power?

Complete tangent warning... One thing that does appear to be new this year in California that I find a bit goofy at its face is this credit. I'm not sure how reducing my electricity bill by $40 bucks twice a year is going to encourage me to save electricity.

I agree on the audible comments. I was going to make a "for the price of that gopro they could have each bought themselves a couple audibles" joke but I thought of that at work and couldn't rewatch the video to confirm no audibles. Missed opportunities... In regards to training yourself with audibles, a guy I know came up with a method that I rather like. You set your first alarm at around 6500 ft. This is the "coming up on breakoff" alarm and gives you confirmation that your audible is functioning. If it's not working, then by the time you notice "hey, my audible should have gone off" you're probably right about at break-off altitude anyway. Also, there's no immediate action so you don't turn into pavlov's dog. The second altitude you set for break-off, and the third you set at your hard deck. (Those two should be fairly self explanatory) You'll note no "pull" alarm. That's on purpose.

...well, when you're picked last for the team they're naturally not going to let you use their gear, drugs, and groupies.

That was roughly my understanding as well, that they had some shared "last-mile" channel bands allocated to draw VOD from a local cable-company owned server.

These are still matters related to government recognition of your marriage affecting how you interact with the government, not how you conduct your personal life within your marriage. With a couple notable exceptions (that were really more about CPS running amok than about marriage, imo) the government doesn't involve itself in people's actual day-to-day married lives.